Wednesday, November 4, 2015

Bayside residents overwhelmingly oppose new high school

Critics attacked the authority’s process for selecting a site, saying it should have involved community input from the beginning — well before a contract was signed.

Some speakers argued that since the overcrowding in Bayside was partly caused by students traveling from other parts of the city, new schools should be opened in those areas instead.

Several speakers directed their fury at Paul A. Vallone, the councilman who represents Bayside. Opponents of the proposal have complained that he has not taken a sufficiently aggressive stand against the project. His position on the matter could influence the rest of the Council, they contend.

“Can a council member be impeached or recalled?” one speaker asked, provoking a chorus of cheers and whoops.

At the conclusion of the two-hour meeting, the community board overwhelmingly rejected the proposal, with only one member voting for it.

On Monday, Mr. Vallone issued a statement saying that as a result of the vote, he would “stand in opposition to this site, despite the community board’s repeated requests for a specialized high school in the district for nearly a decade.”

A representative from the Construction Authority, however, said the city would nonetheless press forward with its plan for the new high school.

46 comments:

“Can a council member be impeached or recalled?” one speaker asked, provoking a chorus of cheers and whoops.

At the conclusion of the two-hour meeting, the community board overwhelmingly rejected the proposal, with only one member voting for it.

On Monday, Mr. Vallone issued a statement saying that as a result of the vote, he would “stand in opposition to this site, despite the community board’s repeated requests for a specialized high school in the district for nearly a decade.”

A representative from the Construction Authority, however, said the city would nonetheless press forward with its plan for the new high school.

---

This article, while typical of the "balancing act" BS that the NY Times does, is pretty accurate as to the blow by blow of what happened on Monday night at CB11.

Just a few corrections:

200+ people, not 150 - not including the Community Board members - were in attendance. Two members of the public spoke in favor of the school, not three, and over 40 people spoke against the school, including myself, not 30.

More importantly:

After MONTHS of listening to Vallone lie to and bully people by telling, shouting at and instructing the public that this school was going to happen - no matter what - Vallone blinked. And, as is usual with cowards, he didn't have the decency or courage to show up to what was the most important meeting at CB11 in a decade and only responded to the press - not to his constituents.

However, this does not mean that he isn't still pushing this terrible school situation behind the scenes.

The way the City Council works is simple: the Councilmembers follow the decision of the Councilperson - in this case, Vallone - whose district is being impacted by a land use or school placement decision.

As I said at the hearing: unless Vallone votes "NO" and the rest of the Council votes "NO" it will be a complete fraud of a vote, as he will try to vote "NO" and ask the rest of the Council to vote "YES" in an attempt to pull the wool over everyone's eyes.

Do not be fooled by this sorry excuse of a public official. Send Councilmember Vallone the message he deserves: NO MEANS NO.

I seem to recall Liz Crowley making a deal with the speaker to get the Maspeth high school passed despite community opposition. She would save face by voting no, while the rest of the council voted yes. That's exactly what will happen here and I think you hit the nail on the head.

Crappy, you are right on target. This is exactly what I'm worried about - and all of his constituents should be as well. Voters of the 19th Council District: in the next few years, don't forget this shameful episode!

One additional comment:

Senator Tony Avella did a yeoman's job of communicating to the audience exactly what has been going on with this situation for the last six months. I want to personally thank the Senator for all of the leadership, hard work and countless hours that he has put in to help us stop this unbelievable abuse perpetrated - again, just like the Keil Brothers site - by Councilmember Vallone and the Schools Construction Authority on Bayside.

This is exactly what happens when people vote blindly for someone just because they saw a stupid lawn sign on some other schmucks lawn. If anyone had done just the tiniest bit of research they would have found that Vallone had done nothing for any community ever!!! All he wants is to climb the political ladder. Paul Graziano has been zoning, battling DOB, protesting illegal development and the community's "go to" guy for 20 years.Shame of all of you who voted for Vallone.

It's not the kids coming in from other areas that are overcrowding the schools here, it is the dobs who doesn't do their job correctly that are overcrowding the schools here. When you have 4 families living in a two family house, then what did you expect to happen?

Yup, keep electing those liberals and democrats. They think they know what is best for you and the community and they don't give a damn about your opinions because all of you are dumb schmucks who will e-elect them anyway.

"It's not the kids coming in from other areas that are overcrowding the schools here, it is the dobs who doesn't do their job correctly that are overcrowding the schools here. When you have 4 families living in a two family house, then what did you expect to happen? "

Yes it is, you didn't see the memo that 60% of the kids aren't from the district? Just look at who goes to the school and who lives around there.

Stinky is a bully, and you can find bullies on the Left and on the Right. Let's rally behind one strong candidate who can oppose him when he's up for re-election - we don't want/need multiple opponents who will split the anti-Stinky vote and allow him to win (again).

Please show some gratitude for the Vollone DynastyThis family of dedicated public servants could have gone into the public sector and made Real Money,oh wait,let me see if I can put that another wayThis family could,oh forget it,politics is where the money is,I'm going to have to get more than 2 bucks a post if I'm going to defend this BS I Quit.

So many of the parish people who were schmucks and agreed to put his lawn sign up are appalled and deeply regret their support. I know a lot of them from the neighborhood and when we get together it's very obvious that no matter what BS they tell this guy to his face the next time they are in the privacy of the voting booth they will be voting him the hell out. People are disgusted. Start with the parents on his kid's soccer team and his fellow members on the SAAvellino Father's Guild. Haven't heard a good word about this guy pretty much since he got elected.

the D.O.E. overcrowds the P.S. by busing SPECIAL ED. (out of district)groups into local buildings.7 S.E.pupils /classrm,that can seat 25 reg. pupils.eg ,the first floor of the P.S.130 building (F.Lewis/42Ave,Bayside) has seats for 260 reg. pupils,but contains for the past 32 yrs 35-50 S.E. the D.O.E.adds this scam into the overcrowding numbers of a K-8 building. the S.E. are in the H.S.'s as well,taking rooms from the local pupils.see:S.E.P.S.993 building location sites.

Bayside/Auburndale is the preferred location for these out of district S.E.groups (P.S.177,I.S.25 P.S.41 P.S.130 etc,etc.

That dumb goombah cannot control his rage and dislike for those he considers beneath him. In other words his constituents.That is the other reason he did not make an appearance. Il Duce thinks he knows it all and tries to impose his will upon his district like a true tyrant. He even shaves his dome like Mussolini used too. A real Mafioso supremo!

"Yup, keep electing those liberals and democrats. They think they know what is best for you and the community and they don't give a damn about your opinions because all of you are dumb schmucks who will e-elect them anyway."

Right. What we need is Republican leadership. The kind of leadership that will do away with job killing communist regulations that are crippling the Real Estate industry in this city.

The City Council may vote for or against, but they do not have approval/disapproval authority.

As you can see below the city council "review[s]" the site selection and the SCA "may" revise, but the decision lies with the SCA. Whether the City Council votes for or against, it is just a recommendation. You wish the council member was more vocal with his opposition, I get it. But don't misrepresent how the decision is made. I think a civics lesson is in dire need for the community members who are against this site. The State legislation is the guiding policy.

§ 1732. City approval of sites. 1. Following the hearings heldpursuant to section seventeen hundred thirty-one of this title, butprior to initiating construction of new educational facilities, theauthority shall submit the site plan of such projects to the mayor andthe council for review, provided, however, that such review shall belimited to the site selected for the project.2. The site plan shall be deemed to be approved by the city unlesswithin twenty days of such submission by the authority it is disapprovedby the mayor or by the council, acting by a two-thirds vote. The councilmay, by a two-thirds vote, override any disapproval of the mayor withintwenty days following receipt of notice of such disapproval from themayor. The notice provision contained herein shall be deemed sufficientfor action by the mayor and the council notwithstanding any provision oflaw, local or general, or charter to the contrary.3. The city may not require the authority to conduct any furtherhearings or seek any further approvals as a condition for receiving cityapproval.4. If the council or mayor disapproves the site plan, (a) theauthority may, after consultation with the city board, revise such siteplan for resubmission pursuant to section seventeen hundred thirty-oneof this title and this section or (b) the authority may, with theagreement of the city board and chancellor, eliminate such site planfrom the five-year educational facilities capital plan.

I mean that the City Council vote has no bearing on whether the school gets built. It is purely a formality. The decision is completely at the discretion of the SCA. As a state authority they are provided this authority from the State legislature. The City Council can provide a vote and make recommendations like the CB can, or any resident.

The "86-ing" of this school will only come from the SCA. That is the law.

It is just much easier to blame an individual who has no authority than the existing system. Complaints of the system are justified but laying blame on the CM, in all due respect, is misdirected and makes it seem like those who oppose don't even know where the decisions are made. I keep seeing complaints throughout the city about school siting laid onto the council. I can't stand them either and wish all the "bums" are fired. But its like blaming POTUS for my subway fare going up.

As you can see below the city council "review[s]" the site selection and the SCA "may" revise, but the decision lies with the SCA. Whether the City Council votes for or against, it is just a recommendation. You wish the council member was more vocal with his opposition, I get it. But don't misrepresent how the decision is made. I think a civics lesson is in dire need for the community members who are against this site. The State legislation is the guiding policy.

You are not reading the law correctly.

The law states that the City Council or Mayor may disapprove any SCA proposal. The City Council must disapprove with a 2/3 majority, or at least 35 of 51 Councilmembers.

If the Mayor disapproves a SCA proposal, the City Council can override the Mayor with a 2/3 majority, or at least 35 of 51 Councilmembers.

If a proposal is disapproved, the SCA then has the option of A) bringing a revised site plan to the Mayor or City Council or B) dropping the proposal.

The point is that if Vallone votes NO and the Council follows because it's his home district and it's a local issue - which is the normal way the Council operates - then it's over.

If Vallone is trying to pretend he's against the school and votes NO while the rest of the Council votes YES - which is what happens when Councilmembers LIE to their constituents by pretending to be against something while telling the other Councilmembers that it's ok to vote for it - then we know exactly who to blame.

Paul: I (and unfortunately the state and city) respectfully disagree with you on the interpretation of the law.

Nothing you cite contains anything that explicitly provides the City Council with authority.

Just because they approve or disapproves does not provide them with the authority.

You seem to not understand the words as they are written. This law has been reviewed and acted on, for years since it was enacted, and the precedent and interpretation contradicts your description. I am not trying to sound condescending but you are really misreading this law.

The entirety of the text that you have cited is written to provide the city with input, not a final decision, to the authority.

§ 1730. Exemption from land use review procedures and other requirements. 1. […] neither (a) the establishment or amendment of an educational facilities capital plan and actions relating to the financing thereof, […] shall be subject to the provisions of any general, special or local law, city charter, administrative code, ordinance or resolution governing uniform land use review procedures, any other land use planning review and approvals, historic preservation procedures, architectural reviews, franchise approvals and other state or local review and approval procedures governing the use of land and the improvements thereon within the city. Capital projects for educational facilities to be undertaken by the authority shall not be subject to the provisions of the charter of the city relating to site selection, land use review procedures […] The authority shall be subject to zoning regulations to the same extent that the city board is subject to such regulations, if at all.

§ 1732. City approval of sites. 1. Following the hearings held pursuant to section seventeen hundred thirty-one of this title, but prior to initiating construction of new educational facilities, theauthority shall submit the site plan of such projects to the mayor and the council for review, provided, however, that such review shall be limited to the site selected for the project. […] 3. The city may not require the authority to conduct any further hearings or seek any further approvals as a condition for receiving city approval. 4. If the council or mayor disapproves the site plan, (a) the authority may, after consultation with the city board, revise such site plan for resubmission pursuant to section seventeen hundred thirty-one of this title and this section or (b) the authority may, with the agreement of the city board and chancellor, eliminate such site plan from the five-year educational facilities capital plan.

The key words for the above cited law is "may" and "review". The city reviews and provides their approval and the authority may eliminate such plan. But as the law states, the SCA has final authority. That is pretty much the whole idea of a Public Benefit Authority; they are a state created entity not subject to city rule. This legal entity has existed for a long time and most people don't understand, or recognize, it's authority.

The key phrase is here: "4. If the council or mayor disapproves the site plan, (a) the authority may, after consultation with the city board, revise such site plan for resubmission pursuant to section seventeen hundred thirty-one of this title and this section OR (b) the authority may, with the agreement of the city board and chancellor, eliminate such site plan from the five-year educational facilities capital plan."

There are only 2 choices here for the SCA at this point. There isn't a third "full steam ahead" option. Why would you think that they would barrel ahead without either changing and resubmitting or eliminating it?

Since the SCA has already decided that they will continue with this application, then yes, actually they will.

They are appointed by the mayor but do not serve at his pleasure. That is meant to maintain their objectivity with these types of decisions. Even if the Mayor tells them how to vote, he also does not have that authority.

How about we just lobby to have the council vote go our way and then see what happens? After all, according to a) and b) above, they very well might change their minds. Folding like a cheap tent is not an option.

Might I add that if a) or b) are not employed as you are assuming, then it just proves Vallone to be a poor representative, because he should be making clear to SCA that this is not an acceptable site. (Instead he dropped the dime about the site to them. It was planned to be a korean social service organization before he started pushing the high school idea).

Spotted a piece of Queens Crap in your community?

Please note

Italicized passages and many of the photos come from other websites. The links to these websites are provided within the posts.

Why your neighborhood is full of Queens Crap

"The difference between dishonest and honest graft: for dishonest graft one worked solely for one's own interests, while for honest graft one pursued the interests of one's party, one's state, and one's personal interests all together." - George Washington Plunkitt

Sites that kick ass:

The above organizations are recognized by Queens Crap as being beneficial to the city as a whole, by fighting to preserve the history and character of our neighborhoods. They are not connected to this website and the opinions presented here do not necessarily represent the positions of these organizations.

The comments left by posters to this site do not necessarily represent the views of the blogger or webmaster.